The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: chris319 on October 21, 2003, 05:15:14 PM
-
Audiences that hoot and whoop like a flock of drunken hoot owls.
Music that sounds like it came from a Radio Shack synthesizer.
Grossly overpaid emcees/panelists who get the boot after just a few seasons.
Motorized spotlights, horror-movie music and other gimmickry disguising the absence of an actual game.
Production companies that botch remakes of the simplest formats.
Butt-ugly Jimmy Cuomo sets.
These are just some of the maladies afflicting the current generation of game shows. The question being posed here is: When and in what ways have modern game shows "jumped the shark"? If you need a definition of jumping the shark, see here:
http://www.jumptheshark.com/ (http://\"http://www.jumptheshark.com/\")
Or do you think game shows haven't "jumped the shark"? If you think Card Sharks 2001 was better than the originals, you are free to make your case here (but I think you will be in a very small minority).
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 04:15 PM\'] Audiences that hoot and whoop like a flock of drunken hoot owls.
Music that sounds like it came from a Radio Shack synthesizer.
Grossly overpaid emcees/panelists who get the boot after just a few seasons.
Motorized spotlights, horror-movie music and other gimmickry disguising the absence of an actual game.
Production companies that botch remakes of the simplest formats.
Butt-ugly Jimmy Cuomo sets.
These are just some of the maladies afflicting the current generation of game shows. The question being posed here is: When and in what ways have modern game shows "jumped the shark"? If you need a definition of jumping the shark, see here:
http://www.jumptheshark.com/ (http://\"http://www.jumptheshark.com/\")
Or do you think game shows haven't "jumped the shark"? If you think Card Sharks 2001 was better than the originals, you are free to make your case here (but I think you will be in a very small minority). [/quote]
The one thing that irritates me the most about the current shows are the camera shots. I've talked about this in another post, but in just about all the shows, the cameras do these wild and crazy moves about the set, tilts, etc. It looks like the cameraman is having an epileptic seizure or something. I mentioned that we have shows like "Cribs" to thank for this, and I stand by that statement. The worst offender I think is Feud, if you ever notice during the credits, right as the theme comes to an end, they always show the set at an tilted angle, then have it move towards a level angle. To be honest, I nearly cringe every time I see it, being it's so annoying.
I'd like to think game shows are one form of programming that don't have to cater to 18-34 year-olds, but that would be too close to normal. But, then again, it's possible to cater to the younger viewers without being so gimmicky. Feud looks like it's trying too hard.
Another Feud peeve: give the audience some sedatives please. We don't need rhythm clapping every single time the theme song plays, and we don't need hootin' and hollerin' every time the #1 answer is given.
-
Another Feud peeve: give the audience some sedatives please. We don't need rhythm clapping every single time the theme song plays, and we don't need hootin' and hollerin' every time the #1 answer is given.
These are pet peeves of mine, too. But they're just that: pet peeves. The Feud certainly has a good game behind it (at least this season). I hope that the smaller things aren't getting in the way of the game, because for me, they aren't.
And I still think that Millionaire, Lingo, The Price is Right, Wheel of Fortune, and Jeopardy! are among the best programs on television. Holywood Squares, too, though that show also has overly crazy audiences. Hopefully, Pyramid and the rest of the GSN Originals lineup aren't spoiling it for the rest of the genre. In my opinion, it's far from jumping the shark.
-
I think the move away from taping game shows live-to-tape, while not a specific shark-jumping moment, is a symptom of definite jumpage.
A big part of the charm of game shows in general is that the games themselves can be a launching pad for spontaneous human interaction with real people. Why do you think NBC has been able to make a very successful series of specials out of these sorts of moments, and nobody has tried a "Greatest Game Show Wins" special?
The contestant and host responses you see on these modern shows, even if they are spontaneous, look fake and pre-produced because of heavy editing and retakes. Some modern hosts are fed lines through the screens on their podiums or through earpieces because their producers either don't trust them to be funny (or remember the rules of the game) on their own or they don't take the time to work with these hosts to bring them to a level where they can fly on their own and make TV magic. The result is that even the most sound, compelling game formats look flat and fake and lack personality.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 04:15 PM\'] Music that sounds like it came from a Radio Shack synthesizer. [/quote]
Make the Russian Roulette theme come out of a Radio Shack synthesizer and we'll talk.
I'll agree that there's a lot of crappy game show music out there right now, as well as monotonous sets. But, if we had the exact same conversation thirty years ago, we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration, the ugly set to Password, the annoying audience of The Price is Right, the gimmickry of The $10,000 Pyramid, and the format slaughtering of Match Game 73.
History repeats itself, doesn't it?
P.S. (Yes, I know that CS2k1 was terrible, with its single redeeming value of the pyramid of cards endgame -- in theory, it looked better than the old setup.)
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 04:15 PM\'] . The question being posed here is: When and in what ways have modern game shows "jumped the shark"? If you need a definition of jumping the shark, see here:
http://www.jumptheshark.com/ (http://\"http://www.jumptheshark.com/\")
[/quote]
I think gameshows "jumped the shark" after NBC cancelled their last daytime effort; I believe Caesar's Challenge. Then we went through a dead period of gameshows, and when they resurfaced in about 1998; we were left with what we have now.
-
"The Chamber" and "The Chair."
-
We haven't begun to see "bad" yet, folks.
Remember, Chuck Barris said "The ultimate game show would be one in which the losing contestant were killed." I haven't seen a thing about our society to indicate to me that we're not still slowly but surely heading to that point.
(At the same time, I'm getting myself caught up in the easy mistake of what the rest of the world does, which is totally misinterpreting the ACTUAL meaning of the "jumping the shark" concept. If I had to pick the ultimate apex, the point where I knew it could only go downhill, I'd say it would be the Millionaire / Twenty-One / Greed / Winning Lines era, when they tossed out 250 and 500 large like it was a handful of Tootsie Rolls. I like Don's idea of the death of Ceasar's Challenge, and certainly game shows haven't gotten BETTER, but I think the breaking of the million-dollar barrier (discounting $1MCOAL as a freak of nature) was the real apex.)
-
Any game show can give away a million dollars but that doesn't make a bad game good. I have an idea for "Million-Dollar Mindreaders". Any takers?
My reference to Radio Shack synthesizer music involved a show with a music package so bad, they eventually went back to the original musical "score".
-
if we had the exact same conversation thirty years ago, we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration, the ugly set to Password, the annoying audience of The Price is Right, the gimmickry of The $10,000 Pyramid, and the format slaughtering of Match Game 73.
I was around 30 years ago and never heard any such complaints, other than from people who don't like anything about game shows to begin with.
-
[quote name=\'Dan Sadro\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 07:40 PM\'] I'll agree that there's a lot of crappy game show music out there right now, as well as monotonous sets. But, if we had the exact same conversation thirty years ago, we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration, the ugly set to Password, the annoying audience of The Price is Right, the gimmickry of The $10,000 Pyramid, and the format slaughtering of Match Game 73.
History repeats itself, doesn't it?
P.S. (Yes, I know that CS2k1 was terrible, with its single redeeming value of the pyramid of cards endgame -- in theory, it looked better than the old setup.) [/quote]
Interesting points, although I saw a "Bullseye I" clip from the first months of TPiR. When the doors opened to reveal a car, the audience ooh'd and gasped, but didn't half as crazy like they do now.
I also agree with the history repeating itself, as far as themes. But I had a thought...I'm sure Jeopardy! got complaints 20 years ago when they trotted out the synthesized theme, and how it didn't fit with a conventional quiz show.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 10:20 PM\']
if we had the exact same conversation thirty years ago, we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration, the ugly set to Password, the annoying audience of The Price is Right, the gimmickry of The $10,000 Pyramid, and the format slaughtering of Match Game 73.
I was around 30 years ago and never heard any such complaints, other than from people who don't like anything about game shows to begin with. [/quote]
I maybe should have been more clear. Let's go back 30 years in time, just the people heavily involved in ATGS through today, at our current relative ages, experiences, and opinions.
Game shows have changed significantly yet our minor nitpicks about shows wouldn't. If we, as a group, had discussed The Match Game from day one of ATGS (which would have been founded in 1963), and then tuned in on the premiere of Match Game 73, there'd probably be a large number of people complaining that the show is thirteen weeks and gone. We'd be discussing the crappy new-fangled theme to Concentration -- why change the theme when the old one was a classic? And why does every game show have to have an orange-and-red set like Password?
Point is -- we'd just be complaining about the same things about different shows.
(What show were you referring to about the Radio Shack synthesizer bit?)
-
I think game shows jumped the shark sometime between 1995 and 2000. One thing that bugs me is the music. Some might say that's just a minor thing, but modern game show music bugs me. Instead of catchy, hummable melodies, most game shows today have music that sounds like it belongs in either a horror movie or a rave. Also, the way music plays practically throughout the entire game rather than just for a few specific cues, is really annoying and it distracts the gameplay. I don't like the sets nowadays either...they're all dark and busy, with lights that could cause seizures, and just rely too much on technology. The graphics are also ridiculously overdone. I just can't help but think that such things make the game shows less fun to watch.
I blame all this on two things. First I blame it on "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?". I don't think that WWTBAM in and of itself is terrible, but once every other game show tried to be like it, that was just it. Even "Wheel of Fortune" has become a noisy mess. The only game shows that haven't fallen into this trap are "Jeopardy!" and "The Price Is Right," and even those have gone downhill.
The other thing I blame it on is the fact that all these game shows are owned by big media conglomates like Sony and FremantleMedia. You just can't except this big studios to run shows the way Goodson-Todman, Merv Griffin, Reg Grundy, Barry & Enright, etc. did when they were independent.
And for the record, I'm 18. That's right, I'm in the 18-to-34 crowd and I'm sick of the way these producers try to make the shows appeal to us. That and the fact that "The Price Is Right" has changed very little since the current incarnation debuted in the '70s and is nevertheless viewed heavily by college students, ought to say something.
-
Never Jumped.
I think we're just in a real bad lull between good ideas. What was the last really good new game show idea (at least on this side of the Atlantic Ocean)? Millionaire? Russian Roulette? Has there been any good idea since that isn't just reviving an older show? Even Survivor's settled down to its core audience as of late. (No, I'm not interested in opening up THAT can of worms here.)
For every 1 good idea, there are 10 decent ideas that are just missing something, and 50 that just couldn't see the forest for the money trees. One good ideas don't come along every other day.
It's just the way TV is, I think, and this is true for all genres. MG98 and others warmed people up a bit, IMO, for a megahit like Millionaire. We're seeing it again, I think, since most of the syndies are up in ratings, and the perennial megahit TPiR is on the upswing. I don't think it will be long before there will be another game show that really clicks, especially with reality TV cooling off and several marquee sitcoms and dramas going away in the near future.
Sure, practically every show in a studio has the Armageddon lighting these days, but that's not the fault of Millionaire. It's just producers who want to cash in on the mania it caused, without realizing that it's not just the dark lights and the big bucks, it's also the tension and everyman qualities that made Millionaire a hit. Atmosphere means everything to a game show, and Armageddon sets sap the atmosphere right out of most of the shows that try it. Like Pyramid, for starters.
It's not time to lock up, I don't think we're leaving anytime soon. We, just like TV, aren't patient. Do I even need to bring up the TPiR 30th anniversary special from two years ago to remind us how fickle that television, and as a result, its fans are? We all just need to calm down, enjoy what we have right now, and see what happens in the next year or two, when a bunch of marquee shows leave the television landscape.
-
This is a very good argument that I would like to give my two cents.
Chris the Moderator has made a good list of Jump the Shark candidates for the overall genre of game shows. However, there is one candidate that sorely needs to be stated: commercial time.
I believe that many formats of today's game shows (revived or otherwise) are altered to satisfy the fact that the shows themselves have been choked out due to excessive commercial ads. I have been frequenting jumptheshark.com for the last year and a half, and one post comes to mind whenever I read The Price is Right's thread. It said that of the hour that TPiR is on, only 32 minutes of that hour is devoted to game time. Think about it: Pyramid has the 6 in :20 rule. Before this season, Family Feud had only FOUR ROUNDS, with the last being tripled and no 300-point rule. The $5,000 round on Wheel of Fortune has been, more times than not, the Speed Round. Once, Hollywood Squares had only ONE ROUND of game play. If today's commercial standards were the same as 30 years ago, would any of these instances happen? Would any of these format changes take place?
The FCC should seriously consider this because the quality and charm of today's game shows have been severely compromised. Yes, we are ad driven. At the same time, however, I deserve some decent television!
I do agree with Speedy G's assessment, as well. Television can be fickle as well as cyclical. The (so-called) best sitcoms of the last decade are siging their swan songs, and I believe that it will be difficult to find another heavy hitter that can run as long as (gag) Friends or Frasier. The latest syndie numbers show that the game shows are on the up-and-up while the reality drudge is on the decline. Also, game shows in prime time is not an abnormality. With the success of The Price is Right's 30th Anniversary Special, 12 more primetime specials have cropped up within the last two years, with THREE more to follow. In time, the market will be right for more game shows (original or otherwise) to surface.
While I say that the game show genre has not jumped the shark yet (in fact, I think that it jumped back after the dead period of 1995-1998), the major part of the problem is the ownership of the properties. What was G-T, B&E, H-H, and the golden letters of RG, has become Sony and Fremantle, and the shows themselves suffer.
The Inquisitive One
-
we'd be complaining about the crappy synthesized theme to Concentration
If anyone thinks Milton Kaye playing his organ was superior to Edd Kalehoff's music, I admire them for the courage of their convictions.
Some of the shows you mentioned run on GSN to this day and we don't hear complaints. A certain TPIR staffer tells me audiences love that show's "retro technology".
(What show were you referring to about the Radio Shack synthesizer bit?)
Louie Anderson Family Feud. Care to hear my rendition?
Bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump - ba - da - bump
(repeat ad nauseam)
-
[quote name=\'TheInquisitiveOne\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 01:42 AM\']The FCC should seriously consider this because the quality and charm of today's game shows have been severely compromised. Yes, we are ad driven. At the same time, however, I deserve some decent television![/quote]
I'm trying very hard not to burst out laughing. Is the "seriously" in that first sentence intended to carry all the way through to the last sentence?
Compare ratings from 20, 30, 40 years ago with ratings today. See all those 30 and 40 shares lots and lots of shows were getting back then? See how, in 2003, getting a 20 share is considered absolutely outstanding? That's cable and the Internet doing its wonderful siphoning. If a show is not significantly cheaper to produce today than it would have been in decades past, and it can't get even half the viewers today that it would've gotten in the past, Where's The Money Going to Come From?
Oh, and regarding the Whoopi Squares episode where only one round was played? That should not be blamed on commercials, but rather on the change to the rules that disallowed default wins even in 5-square-win situations. Take that change away, and that show would've gotten in two rounds, perhaps even part of a third.
-
Oh, and regarding the Whoopi Squares episode where only one round was played? That should not be blamed on commercials, but rather on the change to the rules that disallowed default wins even in 5-square-win situations. Take that change away, and that show would've gotten in two rounds, perhaps even part of a third.
To tell you the truth, I like that rule. Not just because I think it was one of the funniest game show episodes of all time, but because the default rule never made sense to begin with.
If a contestant couldn't win three-in-a-row by default, why could they get a 5-square win by default? It's still winning the game by default so what difference does it really make?
-
I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting!
-
Yeah, I too agree that game shows never jumped.
I just don't think it can. It's too wide a genre and something that's proven to time and again rise from the ashes. Just when you think game shows have bitten the dust, you realize that you were foolish and there's always a place for them.
The game show style you see now is temporary. It will forever be attached to this era and, I think, will stay there. Game shows of the future will have their own styles just like game shows of the past.
We're currently in a game show lull sure, but this too shall pass. We will have a new or remade show hit and hopefully it will lead to more quality shows being made. Of course this will also lead to a lot of bad shows being made, too, but since when hasn't that happened?
Do they make them like they used to? Of course not. They don't do anything the way they used to. If they did, Andy Rooney would be out of a job.
-
[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 07:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
Hey, what do you know, yet another post slamming GSN in a thread discussing the genre as a whole.
-
[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 07:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. [/quote]
Will someone please let me know when this guy stops whining about "fee plugs" and speedups here and in the GSN forums.
Fella, please get a clue. If you want "museum quality" shows, go to the Museum of Broadcasting.
-
To Chris C., I know I've replied twice already, but I have a question...having worked with G-T and knowing what Goodson knew about his shows what have your honest opinions been on the new Goodson revivals (MG98, Feud99/02, CS01). Other than the obvious, of course, but aside from the new theme and Cuomo set, do you think the actual gameplay is solid enough for Feud to hold up to the Dawson or even Combs eras?
-
[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 09:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
Chris wasn't asking about Gameshow Network. Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback.
-
[quote name=\'dheine1971\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 09:06 AM\'] I guess GSN jumped the shark with speedups on some classic game show parts and replacing of fee plugs for 1 more commercial break since 1998. Not to mention the non game show related late night informercials and the 2 hour 3 times a week video games block that's not fitting! [/quote]
Umm...GSN has it's own page over at the JTS site. If you wanna bitch and moan, take it over there.
-
In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with. Concentration was always a good idea, Burt Luddin's Love Buffet was always a bad one.
The industry, in general, is a slave to whatever trend seems to be hottest. Big-money quizzes that seem easy (with the success of Millionaire)? Sure, bring 'em on. Relationship games? Of course. Humiliating people by playing them for suckers? Naturally. (Side note: it's a great sign that the first episode of the latest Joe Millionaire, which Fox has promoted non-stop for the last few weeks, was a tremendous disappointment Monday, finishing a distant fourth in its time slot and garnering less viewers than Seventh Heaven.)
But that's no different than 30 years ago. Dan, you bring up a good point about NBC-produced vs. G&T-produced Concentration, but the older version looked -- well, old. When it came back with Narz at the helm, I was thrilled to see the nifty update. And, to be honest, I had switched to TPIR at 10:30 in the mornings, because it looked so cool in comparison. (Also, as I've noted here before, the original Concentration opening played to this nine-year-old's mind like something out of a horror movie.)
If making changes enriches the viewing experience -- witness the renaissance of Hollywood Squares under Winkler/Levitt, for example -- it's a good thing. If it detracts from the game -- Card Sharks 2001 being the obvious example -- it doesn't. It takes a little bit of intelligence and ability to go against the grain from the producers to either ride with or against the tide in that regard -- Goodson usually managed to do well in this regard; his successors have not shown the same knack to this point.
(Man, am I on the soap box or what? Must be the baby-induced sleep deprivation.)
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 11:24 AM\'] Chris wasn't asking about Gameshow Network. Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback. [/quote]
I stand by Dsmith's side - I am tired of trying to decipher his posts, none of which have ever contributed to any conversation.
He'll take you to Outback, I'll take you BOTH somewhere else the next night after. :)
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 11:24 AM\'] Matt; Chris; ban this guy, and I'll take you out to eat at Outback. [/quote]
I'll add a free round of golf, where I work, to the jackpot, cart included.
Some of the shows you mentioned run on GSN to this day and we don't hear complaints.
I think I'm still not being clear enough. In 1973, nearly every set "looked the same," just like nearly every set "looks the same" now. In 1973, nearly every game show theme was at least somewhat synthesized, and in 2003, nearly every game show theme is at least somewhat synthesized. In 1973, many shows relied on inflated prize payouts. In 2003, many shows rely on inflated prize payouts. In 1973, the audience to TPiR was brash and annoying in comparison to older, more reserved shows. In 2003, audiences are brash and annoying in comparison to older shows. By 1973, producers were changing older formats to modernize the format, and in the last five years, producers are changing older formats to modernize the format (often to fit it into a 19-minute show).
My point is this -- the very things you're complaining about happened thirty years ago, in relative terms. And that period of time is the beginning of the most vibrant and (debatably) the most interesting period of game shows in history. And if we existed 30 years ago in similar capacities, we'd be complaing about the changes in game shows, not knowing that games such as Big Showdown, Break the Bank ('76) and Whew were in our near future.
-
In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with.
I hate the whole JTS phenomenon, mostly because so very few people use the term correctly. Still, I'll take slight exception with my learned friend's comment above. I believe there is one obvious act-of-desperation, writing-on-the-wall move that would qualify as a game show version of "jumping the shark": The addition of celebrities to a non-celeb format.
Hot Potato and Whew! are two examples of games that weren't meant to be celebrity games, but were retro-fitted during the run to awkwardly accomodate stars in a misguided attempt to boost ratings. In a similar vein, Password All-Stars and -- more recently and famously -- Millionaire had their beginning-of-the-end moments when they relied too heavily on the celeb factor.
Otherwise, I think Curt's right on the money. The genre typically doesn't lend itself to those defining end-of-the-line moments that other types of shows do. There are probably isolated examples -- Steve Allen replacing Garry Moore on IGAS might qualify, and certainly Jimmy Kimmel leaving WBSM does -- but generally a show's either "got it" or it doesn't.
-
[quote name=\'calliaume\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 12:26 PM\']In using the term "jump the shark" as it was originally designated (in my mind, when a show had run out of ideas, as illustrated by the Happy Days episode), I don't think individual games "jump the shark" for the most part; either a concept is good or bad to start with. Concentration was always a good idea, Burt Luddin's Love Buffet was always a bad one.[/quote]
Actually, the basic idea of "Burt Luddin" itself wasn't a bad idea (a "Larry Sanders"-esque sitcom about a game show built around a *real* game show), it was just executed poorly on both sides of the fence--the game and the sitcom. In fact, nothing shows the dangers of actors trying to improvise dialogue from scenarios like "Burt Luddin" (and to think from watching "Curb Your Enthusiasm" that it's an easy thing to do).
And that could be the malaise we have here--that there are very few people out there who can execute and fine-tune a format the way that many producers did in the old days. They may have all of the state-of-the-art, computerized bells and whistles, but things simply seem to not be there--and thanks to the huge hit the genre took in the 90s, there isn't the number of younger producers who could've learned from the pros and kept going in the tradition or improved it. It's interesting that Michael Davies has said that he believes that he's been training a new generation of game show staffers with "WWTBAM"--whether that's a good or bad thing we'll see in time.
The funny thing is that in the comments about the multinationals like Fremantle and Sony taking over the ownership of the formats, the one boutique game/reality packager that has not only survived but thrived in the last decade and not been taken over by a multinational media conglomerate is the one that has always taken the most hits around here--Stone-Stanley. This is not to say that I love their output (witness this season's "Shop Til You Drop," or "How can you make a bad show even worse?"), but I do have to admire them for being able to stay in there, to keep producing and not get swallowed up by one of the big guys. Creatively, I would probably have to agree with Randy Amasia when he said once that the worst thing that happened to them was Bob Synes' death--if he had been around long enough to provide more guidance than supervising a kiddie game show, they might've shaped up to be a better packager than they are now.
Of course, after producing "Split Second" for Monty and Stefan, Synes went on to "The Magnificent Marble Machine," so what do I know?
-
The genre typically doesn't lend itself to those defining end-of-the-line moments that other types of shows do.
What about when a show dramatically changes its format part way through the run? I'd think of that as a "jump the shark" moment. The Christmas, 1974 changes on "Now You See It" come to mind as one that fits the bill.
Whew! are two examples of games that weren't meant to be celebrity games, but were retro-fitted during the run to awkwardly accomodate stars in a misguided attempt to boost ratings.
Was "Whew" really doing that badly when they added celebrities? If I remember correctly, they tried a celebrity format for three weeks and then went back to regular contestants before making the celebrity format permanent.
-
[quote name=\'inturnaround\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 09:08 AM\'] The game show style you see now is temporary. It will forever be attached to this era and, I think, will stay there. Game shows of the future will have their own styles just like game shows of the past.
We're currently in a game show lull sure, but this too shall pass. We will have a new or remade show hit and hopefully it will lead to more quality shows being made. Of course this will also lead to a lot of bad shows being made, too, but since when hasn't that happened?
Do they make them like they used to? Of course not. They don't do anything the way they used to. If they did, Andy Rooney would be out of a job. [/quote]
There is one thing from our era that I fear will not be restricted to just our era, the amount of commercial time in a program. (And I'm only talking about the commercials that aren't built into the show proper. Fee plugs and TPIR's pricing games are a different matter.) Consider what would happen or did happen to some shows if they had to go from 25 minutes to 20-22:
Pyramid: 6-in-20, but that's not the worst of it. A huge part of the play-along factor in the Dick Clark era was giving the contestant a few more clues after time ran out. Now, it happens only occasionally in round one, and after round two, they go directly to the recap.
The Joker's Wild (the version that didn't suck): Then: You could usually get two complete games and bonus rounds in, if you didn't have to go to a tie-breaker. The prize package wasn't huge, but with two tries per day, it still gave you winners with nice totals. Now: (Ignore the need to adjust the dollar values for inflation.) You'd be lucky to get a full game, a bonus round and the beginning of another game in. (You can't just make it self-contained, because three Jokers early would give you ten minutes of air to fill.) If you only have one bonus round most days, you need to make it a bigger prize package, which makes it unlikely that anyone will stop with the money.
Tic Tac Dough: Impossible to adjust. Unlike TJW, you can't even change how long it takes to play a game.
Match Game 7x: Ignoring all the other problems with the actual MG98, the change is similar to TJW. Then: A full game come hell or high water. Occasionally, you have a 1-1 or 0-0 tie which means that a full game and bonus round takes a full half-hour of air time, but that's okay because the contestants dumb enough to force a 1-1 or 0-0 tie are funny on their own. Now: In order to get a full game and audience match even without the tie-breaker, you'd have to edit out the chit-chat that made the show so much fun to watch. (Picture Hollywood Squares with Vulcan celebrities.)
LMAD and Beat the Clock: One less deal and one less stunt per half-hour.
-
The genre typically doesn't lend itself to those defining end-of-the-line moments that other types of shows do.
What about when a show dramatically changes its format part way through the run? I'd think of that as a "jump the shark" moment. The Christmas, 1974 changes on "Now You See It" come to mind as one that fits the bill.
I would argue that Now You See It's format was pretty mediocre to begin with. Generally speaking, G-T shows were usually as sound as they would get from day 1. When they started making major changes in the middle of the run -- Now You See It and Showoffs being the obvious examples; I wouldn't consider the changes they made to the end game on Card Sharks '86 or the Star Wheel in that category -- it was like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The format signed off on didn't work really well and wasn't going to no matter what changes were made.
And Matt's absolutely right; I forgot about adding celebrities to shows, a point I make several times on my own site (and tack The Magnificent Marble Machine onto that list as well).
I honestly don't remember when Whew's changes became permanent, but if it was within two or three weeks of the initial experiment, it's possible the change was okayed by network execs enamored of the idea rather than waiting for the ratings to come in. Sometimes it's just utterly obvious celebrities on the show won't work, with New York-based The Money Maze's failed week with Soupy Sales and Anita Gillette being the obvious example. (Would have loved to have seen Peggy Cass or Arlene Francis romping through the maze, however.)
-
The worst thing that has happened to game shows IMO is the abundance of commercials. Many shows I see now seem rushed. Also, the catering to 18-34 year olds doesn't help formats that are normally enjoyed by older people.
-
the very things you're complaining about happened thirty years ago, in relative terms. And that period of time is the beginning of the most vibrant and (debatably) the most interesting period of game shows in history
What I complained about in the initial post were changes for the worse, not changes for the better. You just described the '70s as a vibrant and interesting period, so would you agree that on balance the modernized '70s versions of shows were better than their '50s predecessors? I would say this was certainly the case with TPIR, MG and WML? Now let's bring this discussion into the new millenium: Would you argue that CS 2001 or MG 98 were improvements over the NBC/CBS versions?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 05:21 PM\'] What I complained about in the initial post were changes for the worse, not changes for the better. You just described the '70s as a vibrant and interesting period, so would you agree that on balance the modernized '70s versions of shows were better than their '50s predecessors? I would say this was certainly the case with TPIR, MG and WML? Now let's bring this discussion into the new millenium: Would you argue that CS 2001 or MG 98 were improvements over the NBC/CBS versions? [/quote]
The question is not whether the shows were better, because we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the question is whether we, as a group would perceive the changes as being better. 2003 has been a vibrant and interesting period -- many remakes of classic shows are on the air, and the airwaves have varied and fairly imaginitive game programming. In hindsight, yes, the modernized 70s versions were better than the 50s predecessors. But if I experienced television through the 60s similar to how I experienced television during the 90s, I might not have felt the same way about MG73. I suspect that many of us are in the exact same boat, and that's what I've been arguing.
Obviously CS2001 sucked, although it wouldn't have been as bad if it didn't have Perry's and Eubanks' versions as predecessors. MG98 wasn't a terrible game, it just paled in comparison to MG73, mainly because of the lack of quality panelists aside from Nell Carter and Vicki Lawrence. This we can experience in 20/20 hindsight.
-
Would you argue that CS 2001 or MG 98 were improvements over the NBC/CBS versions?
Of course not, but the seventies had its share of failed remakes as well. We just don't talk about them as much today because...well, they failed. Truth or Consequences, The $128,000 Question, Celebrity Charades, Masquerade Party and others were poor 70s syndicated updates of popular 50s shows.
Failure is timeless, but so is success. I don't see anything that suggests that the viability of the game show genre is any shakier now than it's ever been. We talk about the mid-seventies as a golden age for the quantity (and quality) of shows on the air, but thanks to cable, there have been just about as many games on the air now as there were then. Some are excellent, many are good and many of them are forgettable junk. Just like then.
Sure, it's difficult to find new formats and new ways of doing things, but that's true of TV in general, not just our games. I see no shark fins.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 01:50 PM\']
Millionaire had their beginning-of-the-end moments when they relied too heavily on the celeb factor.
[/quote]
I think also contributing to the "beginning of the end" for network Millionaire was the end of the phone game qualifying format, nearly as much as adding extra celeb shows. The changing of qualifying format to in-person auditions took out the "every person can call in and qualify and be on the show within a few weeks or days" aspect to it. This could arguably be the biggest Jump the Shark moment in GS history.
-
Personally, I think game shows were beginning to jump the shark in the late 80s/early 90s when shows were either being severely tweaked and/or poorly remade.
Three examples :
1) Newlywed Game -- Not only did you switch Bob Eubanks with Paul Rodriguez, you traded a nice 80s 'updated' traditional set for something that looked like a ratty New York City apartment *AND* killing a familiar game show 80's-style ditty for a familiar non-game show 50's doo-wop song.
2) The Jokers Wild -- Instead of a tried and true 2 person Q&A format, you turned it into a 3-person "Game of Definitions".
3) Tic Tac Dough -- Put in one bad-acting son of a famous silver screen icon, and add a Dragon Slayer that kills rapping reptiles.
Enough said on that part.
Oddly enough, it was just prior to this era when some pretty decent show concepts made air, but for whatever reason or another, they were short lived.
Three Examples:
1) Wipeout -- good format, not the best financially-backed/supported producers.
2) Catch Phrase -- a format that did far better across the pond than in the States, again without a good backing financially by higher ups.
3) Blackout -- a good main game premise, but the Network execs used it to kill a timeslot for 13 weeks, as per the creator/producer.
Also, prior to the late 80s, we had seen quite a few shows that
-
We've had this discussion before over the years but it always bears repeating:
that could be the malaise we have here--that there are very few people out there who can execute and fine-tune a format the way that many producers did in the old days. They may have all of the state-of-the-art, computerized bells and whistles, but things simply seem to not be there--and thanks to the huge hit the genre took in the 90s, there isn't the number of younger producers who could've learned from the pros and kept going in the tradition or improved it.
That's it in a nutshell.
Another part of the problem is that even for people who learned game shows at the knees of the old masters, the market for daytime game shows has withered away leaving a mere shadow of the former business/employment climate. Robert Sherman comes to mind as a very capable "second-generation" producer who is no longer active in the business, with Sande Stewart and the TPIR staff perhaps being the sole exceptions. Someone who is good at game development, be it a new idea or a remake, can look at a game and identify the parts that click and the parts that don't, and get rid of the parts that don't. This skill did not seem to be in abundance among the creators of Card Sharks 2001 or that other wonder, One Hundred Percent.
-
I don't think game shows have jumped the shark (dammit I hate that term; I really do). Jumping the shark just means it's impossible for game shows to still be watchable. Not so. Lingo and Whammy! are fantastic shows, although nobody notices that typically because GSN tramples the enjoyment of both with repeated airings. I still enjoy Millionaire, Family Feud, and of course TPIR. Quite honestly, I think now is a great time to be a game show fan, even if the execution is botched so very often.
-
[quote name=\'TimK2003\' date=\'Oct 22 2003, 07:24 PM\'] 3) Tic Tac Dough -- Put in one bad-acting son of a famous silver screen icon, and add a Dragon Slayer that kills rapping reptiles.
[/quote]
The Dragon Slayer also rapped as well.
And let's not forget Henry Mancini who also wrote the child-like theme!
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 07:44 PM\'] [/QUOTE]
I think gameshows "jumped the shark" after NBC cancelled their last daytime effort; I believe Caesar's Challenge.
[/quote]
Yes it was in January 1994! NBC had plans to rerun Caesar until March, but suddenly changed their minds when the LA earthquake hit the following Monday (Martin Luther King Day 1994).
-
[quote name=\'GSWitch\' date=\'Oct 23 2003, 09:07 PM\']
Yes it was in January 1994! NBC had plans to rerun Caesar until March, but suddenly changed their minds when the LA earthquake hit the following Monday (Martin Luther King Day 1994). [/quote]
I think Caesar's and Classic Concentration's replacement, the Jane Whitney talk show(she had a local show on WCAU in Philly in the early 80s) was a done deal beforehand, and the earthquake had nothing to do with it. Whitney's show was listed in TV Guide that came out the Monday or Tuesday beforehand IIRC.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Oct 23 2003, 09:28 PM\']I think Caesar's and Classic Concentration's replacement, the Jane Whitney talk show(she had a local show on WCAU in Philly in the early 80s) was a done deal beforehand, and the earthquake had nothing to do with it. Whitney's show was listed in TV Guide that came out the Monday or Tuesday beforehand IIRC.[/quote]
I believe that's correct. Which leads me into this meaningless segue.
Among the few TV GUIDEs I've collected over the years is a "Central Time Zone" edition dated 1/31 - 2/6/98 (Yasmine Bleeth is on the cover--{arr-rrrrrr}). Anyway, the novelty of the "Central Time Zone" edition is that it includes generalized network listings. Lo and behold, as I look up NBC's generalized schedule, is a listing for CAESAR'S CHALLENGE at 11:30AM CT (NBC's three sudsers of that era are also listed--at 10AM, 12N and 1PM CT; the rest of the NBC broadcast day consisted of TODAY, LEEZA, Brokaw, prime time, Leno, CONAN, LATER [I think Kinnear was still there at that point] and "local programming"). Remember, this was a full four years after CAESAR'S was cancelled.
So the question is, does anyone recall actually seeing CAESAR'S CHALLENGE in 1998 in this fashion (as opposed to a tape trade, etc.)? Or was this a dubious listing?
The other question is will Chris C. now kill me for taking his topic to a completely different tack (it's still on the subject of game shows but it has nothing to do with jumping the shark)?
Doug
-
Wow; I've definitely seen some quite interesting comments! :)
Just to give my opinion, I definitely agree with the end of the network game show (save for TPIR) that game shows seemed to "jump the shark." When a network gives a show backing, it means that there is a lot of available money to put into the development of the set, the format, and, of course, getting a good host. When a show is syndicated, however, people have to sell their show to a lot of stations, and, suddenly, people may find themselves skimping on some of the developmental issues in order to try and get an idea sold.
We have certainly seen our share of great shows and dismal failures, both on network and in syndication. But, look at nowadays: Almost EVERY new show has been syndicated, and they make sure to just take the game out of the show and just make it a bunch of celebrities making comments or contestants acting stupid. There are obvious exceptions, but look at network shows in comparison: When ABC did WWTBAM, NBC did 21, CBS did "Winning Lines," and FOX did "Greed," all were well-executed and had fantastic layouts; it's a shame that the latter three didn't last longer than they did.
I think the only drawback now with major networks is that they're looking for a quick fix in terms of ratings; if something doesn't take off immediately, it's gone. Do you think CBS would've left IGAS on after its initial six weeks now? Remember that it would've been canceled, but it was eventually left on and ran for almost 15 years! Surely there have been many examples from the last few years that could've definitely prospered if they had more time to flourish!
In short, it seems that the change of focus from the network to syndication has not only robbed game shows of a sound base of financial help, but also a sense of even having a game since a syndicated show MUST be pitched time and time again; development seems to come later, in that respect.
"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Anthony
-
[quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Oct 23 2003, 07:58 PM\'] So the question is, does anyone recall actually seeing CAESAR'S CHALLENGE in 1998 in this fashion (as opposed to a tape trade, etc.)? Or was this a dubious listing? [/quote]
Definitely a dubious listing...looks like TV Guide didn't delete it from their database when NBC returned the time slot to the affiliates.
From late 1997 to early 1999, I was working in a facility where the main NBC feed was being monitored from 5:00 A.M. to 2:05 A.M. (Eastern) each weekday. I'm sure I would have noticed if I'd seen "Caesar's Challenge" show up on NBC at some point.
-
[quote name=\'trainman\' date=\'Oct 24 2003, 10:34 PM\'] [quote name=\'SRIV94\' date=\'Oct 23 2003, 07:58 PM\'] So the question is, does anyone recall actually seeing CAESAR'S CHALLENGE in 1998 in this fashion (as opposed to a tape trade, etc.)? Or was this a dubious listing? [/quote]
Definitely a dubious listing...looks like TV Guide didn't delete it from their database when NBC returned the time slot to the affiliates.
From late 1997 to early 1999, I was working in a facility where the main NBC feed was being monitored from 5:00 A.M. to 2:05 A.M. (Eastern) each weekday. I'm sure I would have noticed if I'd seen "Caesar's Challenge" show up on NBC at some point. [/quote]
Feeding old shows is not unprecedented for NBC though, up until the start of "Last Call," they were showing 15-20 year old reruns of SCTV. Remember "Jumping for Dollars"?
-
I haven't read all of the entries to this topic yet, so excuse me if someone's already made this point.
I find most of the question-and-answer quizzes totally boring. There's very little real "game" to them.
Gimme something with a twist, or at least a board to look at.
-
I find most of the question-and-answer quizzes totally boring. There's very little real "game" to them.
I find the quiz material of Millionaire compelling enough to make the show watchable. Weakest Link fell into the rut you described and Greed was a hopeless lost cause. Unrigged Twenty One was the same train wreck it was in 1956 sans the novelty of big-money winners, territory which Millionaire had staked out first. Weakest Link and Greed were alluded to in the initial post as gimmickry over game.
-
I'm with you when it comes to the "man vs. machine" concept. A good game board of some sort just adds more attraction. And the less computer-generated, the better! (Classic Concentration = yecch!)
There are some wonderful, thought-provoking replies here. I'm not sure games have gone past their peak - but they have lost some of their charm. Right about the end of the era of NBC daytime shows (Caesar's Challenge) sounds like a good time marker. The overstimulation we get from today's packages is just symptomatic of everything else today. I don't like to be shouted at, but the so-called "experts" say you have to scream to be heard above the clutter...so we're getting either good formats with a little extra slickness, or weak formats that producers hope we won't discover are bad because they're awash in flash and dazzle. Goodson-Todman's shows may have been in a rut, but they had a quality - and that's what I miss. We were treated intelligently. Today's shows just don't feel the same - but it's a new generation of producers who grew up in an era of sizzle vs. substance, unlike Mark, Jack, and Bob. Class and restraint is the key. When someone strikes the right balance of quality and dazzle (MILLIONAIRE), I'm all for it. Treat me as intelligent, show me some class, and I'll watch.
-
[quote name=\'Adam Nedeff\' date=\'Oct 23 2003, 02:15 PM\'] Whammy! are fantastic shows, [/quote]
Not really.....
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Oct 21 2003, 07:44 PM\'] I think gameshows "jumped the shark" after NBC cancelled their last daytime effort; I believe Caesar's Challenge. Then we went through a dead period of gameshows, and when they resurfaced in about 1998; we were left with what we have now. [/quote]
If they've jumped the shark at all, I'd have to agree that the sharp decline of network game shows was its cause - and, in my opinion, this started when networks started to realize that "talk is king". (Group W learned this almost 20 years ago when San Francisco's CBS affiliate had TPIR pre-empted for at least two years because the station, owned by Group W, had to show the "Group W talk show of the moment", and heaven forbid that any of its soap operas get pre-empted because of it. Seen the network morning schedules lately? (Then again, wasn't there a time in the mid-1970s when ABC's national schedule started at 11:30 AM with a Brady Bunch repeat?)
The main reason the loss of network game shows caused the problem: syndicated and cable shows had lower budgets and, as a result, lower prizes. (Case in point: any Wink Martindale episode of High Rollers, with the "one prize per column" rule. On the NBC Trebek version, there could be up to five prizes per column - and at least twice, somebody won 15 prizes in a single game. Also, on the NBC version of JackPot!, jackpots grew a lot faster as all riddle amounts went into the jackpot, even if the riddle was missed.) Sure, Jeopardy and Wheel pay off reasonably big money (how many other shows are there where there's a chance of somebody winning $100,000 on every show (without having to risk $10,000 first)?), but after that, what's left?
-- Don
-
[quote name=\'Jimmy Owen\' date=\'Oct 24 2003, 10:18 PM\'] Feeding old shows is not unprecedented for NBC though, up until the start of "Last Call," they were showing 15-20 year old reruns of SCTV. [/quote]
Yep, I closed-captioned some of those. As far as NBC was concerned, they were new episodes, because they'd never run on NBC in that form; they were the 30-minute syndicated reruns, edited to the extent that the original opening was replaced by a new one, featuring the dulcet tones of Rita Sever: "Tonight, 'Later' presents 'SCTV,' starring..."
-
I think quiz shows have definitely jumped the shark. I really think that we are in an era where you have to risk a lot to win a lot -- including life, limb, and maybe a lot more...
I mean, it's no longer sufficient to know everything the best -- now it's politics and voting people off and eating squid and drinking sea water, etc. etc. etc.
That's one of the reasons I want WWTBAM back on primetime, but only if it is with the phone game...
-
Game Shows jumped the shark in 1990 when NBC's morning lineup started to fall apart. Probably one reason why I disliked that decade so much. Ever since then things have never been the same. The 90's will forever be known as the decade that Game Shows were cursed!
John
-
Indeed, I always call the '90s the decade when pop culture as a whole died. Nothing fun or remotely good for the most part, just annoying and dumb. Which is why I scoffed on the VH1.com boards about someone suggesting an I Love the '90s. Sure, the early '90s were pretty good, but after that? Ooooh, I SO want to see specials about the genius of the Spice Girls, and the debuts of those two new beacons of TV entertainment, UPN and the WB! And the rise of Britina Spaguilera.....oh, give me more of that!!!!!!!
Anyway, I think the moment game shows JTS'ed for me was the Jonathan Goodson Two in 1994. TPIR94 was actually the lesser of two evils for me...I never liked what they did to Family Feud, even then. I can't fault Richard Dawson for getting to go out on a high note, but I missed Ray Combs, and HATED what they did to the set, format, etc. And of course Goodson properties have never been the same since, from the rumors of Charlene Tilton "blanking" her way to the part of MG97 pilot host, all the way to the onslaught of Pearson/Fremantle disappointments. Only now do they seem to have "got it" with their one remaining syndicated show, yet 100 Mexicanos Dijeron is still better ;-)
The other things you named do not help by any means either...more commercial time, which has affected both classic and new shows; a tendency to appeal to the lowest common denominator (yeah, sometimes I worry too about when the Running Man will become a reality); and syndication not having the budget that networks did (Whammy! is decent, but will never be PYL: TOS due to, among other things, scaled back prizes and money). Some of these things are ruining the rest of television too.
-
Ooooh, I SO want to see specials about the genius of the Spice Girls, and the debuts of those two new beacons of TV entertainment, UPN and the WB! And the rise of Britina Spaguilera.....oh, give me more of that!
In ten years, people will be saying precisely that, and not in a sarcastic way. Such is the nature of nostalgia. Part of the fun of it -- as those of us who lived through the seventies and eighties already know -- is making fun of ourselves for the stupid things that we made popular at the time. The nineties will be no different, there just hasn't been enough time passed yet.